Couldn't help but think of todays...

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

You can not simply pause it at :54 and think you can make an accurate call on that play. Movement is still occurring. And according to the legal guarding position rule, you can only move laterally or obliquely provided you do not move towards the opponent when contact occurs.

When you cut off a slasher, you're moving towards that player. Note: the rule doesn't say move forward; it says moving towards. You must stop the motion before contact occurs (that's what I mean by "set"), and the center didn't. And since she didn't, she is liable for the contact.

All I can say then, is you're seeing a different play than everyone. IMO, the player obtains LGP at the 54 second mark. As is her right by obtaining it, she is allowed to move laterally to maintain it. I don't have her moving towards the defender because she takes the contact in the torso. That fact that she was moving or wasn't "set" has no baring on this play because she has LGP. She doesn't get to the position after the player went airborne because the contact originated before the player was airborne.

I will try and make a slow motion clip of the play to make it easier.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

All I can say then, is you're seeing a different play than everyone. IMO, the player obtains LGP at the 54 second mark. As is her right by obtaining it, she is allowed to move laterally to maintain it. I don't have her moving towards the defender because she takes the contact in the torso. That fact that she was moving or wasn't "set" has no baring on this play because she has LGP. She doesn't get to the position after the player went airborne because the contact originated before the player was airborne.

I will try and make a slow motion clip of the play to make it easier.

I'm seeing the right play. The issue isn't what we see as much as how we enforce the rule.

The fact that she was moving DOES have barring on this play, because the movement is TOWARDS the ballhandler. There's no ifs, ands, or buts on this; that's the exception the LGP rule makes. And the center was moving towards the player and never stopped the movement. The center is not allowed to move laterally if it's towards the ballhandler.

[walter]

I guess you are going to stand alone. Since it is the dribbler, time and distance don't matter. I see the secondary defender, after establishing LGP, moving laterally, beating the ballhandler to the spot and the contact is clearly center torso. I have PC without a doubt. There is nothing that says a defender has to be set/still to get the PC call. As for the other play, from the angle we have on the video, I have a clean black and play on.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I'm seeing the right play. The issue isn't what we see as much as how we enforce the rule.

The fact that she was moving DOES have barring on this play, because the movement is TOWARDS the ballhandler. There's no ifs, ands, or buts on this; that's the exception the LGP rule makes. And the center was moving towards the player and never stopped the movement. The center is not allowed to move laterally if it's towards the ballhandler.

I don't know what your definition of towards is.



To me, towards the defender is any movement in the blue region with the defender being the N in the picture. If a defender has LGP, they may move in any direction (including the straight line) in the white to maintain that position. I have the defender moving laterally to maintain. She legally gets to the spot before the dribbler and is there before she's airborne.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

To me, towards the defender is any movement in the blue region with the defender being the N in the picture. If a defender has LGP, they may move in any direction (including the straight line) in the white to maintain that position. I have the defender moving laterally to maintain. She legally gets to the spot before the dribbler and is there before she's airborne.

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

When a defender moves in to cut a slasher off, they're moving toward the dribbler. Doesn't matter what their shoulders or torso are pointing; it's towards them. Therefore they have to take responsibility for any contact drawn due to their movement. The center could have easily stopped her movement and ran parallel with the slasher and made a play on the ball. Instead, she moved under the dribbler's forward movement and made contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

When a defender moves in to cut a slasher off, they're moving toward the dribbler. Doesn't matter what their shoulders or torso are pointing; it's towards them. Therefore they have to take responsibility for any contact drawn due to their movement. The center could have easily stopped her movement and ran parallel with the slasher and made a play on the ball. Instead, she moved under the dribbler's forward movement and made contact.

Well you're using a definition of towards that I've never heard anyone use in relation to legal guarding position. I can concede that maybe from the lead's angle, the player was moving towards (my definition of, not yours) the dribbler. That's a big maybe though. From the angle provided, I'd stick with my PC call. I will say that it seems that you're the only one so far to call a block while the rest have been near unanimous in saying player control (from the angle shown).

Perhaps my view of this play is wrong and someone will come along and explain it better to me. Or perhaps someone will come along and explain this play and LGP better than I have.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

The way you're viewing this, the rule is pointless; as there's no way a player can move laterally to cut off an opponent without breaking your interpretation of "towards."

There is a difference between moving "towards" the opponent's path and moving towards the opponent. In this play, she moves towards her opponent's path; perfectly legal. Don't confuse the two.

As she is moving slightly backward (obliquely) at the point of contact, she's actually moving away from the opponent at that point.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The way you're viewing this, the rule is pointless; as there's no way a player can move laterally to cut off an opponent without breaking your interpretation of "towards."

No it isn't. It's simple: don't create contact by moving into the dribbler. She could have easy quit on the charge and still have been able to maintain defensive pressure inside without making contact. Frontcourt basketball players do it all the time.

There is a difference between moving "towards" the opponent's path and moving towards the opponent. In this play, she moves towards her opponent's path; perfectly legal. Don't confuse the two.

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

As she is moving slightly backward (obliquely) at the point of contact, she's actually moving away from the opponent at that point.

She didn't move backwards even an inch. If anything, considering the volleyball line that she was stepping on when she began the cutoff, she actually moved forward from that point. Look at her feet. C'mon.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

The distance was closed by the dribbler not the defender.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

No it isn't. It's simple: don't create contact by moving into the dribbler. She could have easy quit on the charge and still have been able to maintain defensive pressure inside without making contact. Frontcourt basketball players do it all the time.

Completely irrelevant to whether her actions were legal or not. We don't officiate based on what the player could have done differently. That sounds like a coach's perspective to me.

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

I didn't. She moved towards the opponent. The distance between the two became shorter because she was moving towards the opponent. Thus, she is liable for contact made.

The distance became shorter because the dribbler was moving towards here. Again, a completely irrelevant statement; otherwise defenders would always be liable for contact. Hell, even a defender moving straight backwards and getting run over would be liable if that was at all relevant.

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

She didn't move backwards even an inch. If anything, considering the volleyball line that she was stepping on when she began the cutoff, she actually moved forward from that point. Look at her feet. C'mon.

C'mon is right. The defender may have moved slightly towards the division line, but given the angles of travel, she was also moving slightly away from the dribbler.

If the dribbler hadn't been moving, then B1's movements would have had her moving farther away from the dribbler.

I have to echo scrapper's question after your statement about her not getting "set."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

If the defender was moving "toward" the offensive player and made contact, the contact would have been on the side / shoulder. In the play presented, the defender moved to maintain LGP in the (changing) path of the offensive player. PC foul.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

if the defender was moving "toward" the offensive player and made contact, the contact would have been on the side / shoulder. In the play presented, the defender moved to maintain lgp in the (changing) path of the offensive player. Pc foul.

+1

[JugglingReferee]

Also evidence that it was a PC: after the contact, A1 has her feet down where B2 used to have her feet. Had it been a block, A1 would have careened to a different location.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

Once again, the rule says toward, not forward. There's a difference. You can move toward someone without moving forward (which is actually what the center did). And you can move forward without moving toward someone that's to the north of you.

When a defender moves in to cut a slasher off, they're moving toward the dribbler. Doesn't matter what their shoulders or torso are pointing; it's towards them. Therefore they have to take responsibility for any contact drawn due to their movement. The center could have easily stopped her movement and ran parallel with the slasher and made a play on the ball. Instead, she moved under the dribbler's forward movement and made contact.

You're confusing the dribbler's movement towards the defender for the defender's movement towards the dribbler.

[JugglingReferee]

One thing that I saw that I didn't like.

I don't like the mechanic of the T working the arc by moving in the direction towards the DL, when the actions of the players (ball carrier A1 and defender B1) are moving away from the DL and towards the restricted area.

Rather, move with the play as the play moves closer to the basket.

It looks like the T is 7 feet above the 3PLE and the contact is 6 feet below the FTL. With the diagonal taken into account, the T is about 21 feet away.

With the ball at the top, the L has that low-post matchup, even though that matchup is pretty tame. Given that we're to "referee the defense", L will be looking at B2 - who is the secondary defender to A1's drive. Why does the T have a whistle on a crash as she moves away from the play and is clearly the L's call to make?

Of course I agree to get the call correct, but if you watch the video, the T is still trying to get to a spot to sell the call even after the L closed in and already gave a prelim.

Maybe it's just me, but as far as the T is concerned, it's what not to do. YMWV.